Thursday, June 1, 2017

Gharib, Ali; Clifton, Eli. “Dissent Breaks Out at the Center for American Progress Over Netanyahu’s Visit” ‘At a meeting Friday, about a dozen staffers objected to the liberal think tank’s invitation to the right-wing Israeli prime minister. Here’s what they said.’ (10 Nov 2015) Nation.

There is dissent at
the Center for American Progress. Late last month, the Democratic Party–aligned
think tank announced that it would, with encouragement from the influential
pro-Israel lobby AIPAC, accept an offer from Benjamin Netanyahu’s office to host the
right-wing Israeli prime minister for an event.
The invite stirred controversy: Many liberals who normally fall within the
Democratic Party milieu were miffed that Netanyahu, a figure who has been
widely seen over the past several years as openly siding with Republicans and
neoconservative ideologues, would be given an opportunity to rehabilitate his
image as a bipartisan figure. “He’s looking for that progressive validation,” a
former Center for American Progress (CAP) staffer told the Huffington Post, “and they’re
basically validating a guy who race-baited during his election and has
disavowed the two-state solution, which is CAP’s own prior work.”

The discomfort felt
by many former CAP employees—including us, who, by way of disclosure, both
worked at CAP in 2011 and 2012 (more on which in a bit)—turns out to also be
felt inside the think tank. According to a report in Foreign Policy, around a dozen CAP
employees rose at a tense all-staff meeting to deliver a statement of dissent
over Netanyahu’s talk. The statement, which was obtained by The Nation
from a person who was at the meeting, elucidates the staffers’ objections to
hosting Netanyahu as well as the process by which the prime minister’s offer to
appear came to be accepted. (The full statement follows below this post.)

“During one of our
regular all-staff meetings,” a CAP spokesperson told The Nation in a
statement, “we discussed the November 10th event with the Prime Minister. We
discussed why CAP was holding the event and why holding the event is consistent
with our progressive values. Staff expressed their thoughts and concerns about
the event and had an open and engaged conversation with senior CAP leadership.”
Two sources with knowledge of the all-staff meeting said CAP president Neera
Tanden, who has publiclydefended the Netanyahu invite and will moderate
the Q&A with Netanyahu, did not attend the meeting. “Neera was traveling
out of town for a few ” the CAP spokesperson said in response to a question on
Tanden’s attendance, “and rather than wait to hold the meeting, we held it with
senior CAP leadership.” According to Foreign Policy, the meeting was
presided over by Winnie Stachelberg, a senior vice president, and Brian
Katulis, a senior fellow.

“Young people in
Palestine are advising young people in Ferguson on how to deal with tear gas
and flash grenades.”

The staffers who
rose to deliver the statement of dissent said they were left out of the process
and now face difficulty returning to the communities from which they come and
work with. “It becomes difficult to step outside of our building and say to our
allies why this visit is happening, for some of us here we ourselves feel that
we were not considered in that decision,” the statement reads. The authors
cited, for example, the strong relationships built between Palestinian protesters,
who face routine tear-gassing at their demonstrations, and Black Lives Matter
activists in places like Ferguson, Missouri. “[I]t’s hard to separate American
progress from world progress when young people in Palestine are advising young
people in Ferguson on how to deal with tear gas and flash grenades,” they
wrote.

In one of three
sections of the statement asking tough questions of their senior colleagues,
the dissenting CAP staffers questioned Netanyahu’s unapologetic justification
of Israel’s assault on the Gaza Strip in the summer of 2014, citing the more
than 2,000 Palestinian deaths, “many of them children,” in that flare-up of
violence. A UN commission said both Israel and Hamas may have been
responsible for war crimes in the fighting. The commission found that over 1,400 Palestinian civilians,
more than 500 of them children, died in the fighting (six Israeli civilians
died in the conflict). “What do we call a disagreement of that magnitude?” the
CAP staffers wrote of Netanyahu’s defense of the war. “A thing that terrible?
Would we bring other leaders to this institution who had committed similar
crimes?”

The internal dissent
at CAP comes after a report by Glenn Greenwald at the Intercept that exposed CAP’s conduct following a smear campaign
against several of its staffers in 2011 and 2012, including us (Gharib was
quoted in Greenwald’s report). After being attacked by Israel lobby groups and
neoconservatives for critical writing about Israel, Tanden implemented a
protocol to monitor our writing, including setting certain subjects—such as
criticism of AIPAC—off limits and, in one instance, censoring our work after
publication. According to the Intercept, CAP imposed the measures as a means of
currying favor with right-leaning pro-Israel groups and figures.

The statement at
Friday’s meeting hinted that some of pressure on staffers still exists. “Some
are standing; many, many more don’t feel empowered to do so,” the statement
said, suggesting that the handful of staffers who rose to read the statement
were supported by colleagues who were not comfortable doing do. Nonetheless,
according to Foreign Policy, the statement earned a round of applause
during the meeting. “There weren’t just isolated pockets of disapproval, among
the staff—it was practically the whole room clapping for 10-15 seconds,” one
staffer told Foreign Policy.

“Would we bring
other leaders to this institution who had committed similar crimes?”

The dissent among
CAP staffers over the invitation to Netanyahu shows that staffers at the
progressive think tank remain uncomfortable with the Israeli prime minister and
his right-wing agenda—even as CAP’s leadership shows deference to Netanyahu and
helps reestablish his bipartisan credentials.

Here’s the
full statement read aloud by the CAP staffers:

We all came to work
at this institution with a passion and belief for the CAP mission, being an
organization dedicated to improving the lives of all Americans, through bold,
progressive ideas and to change the conversation and to change the country.

Coming to work at
CAP gives many of us the opportunity to make this country safe and accepting of
all. While we watch the hate crimes, discrimination and biases faced by some of
our communities, we come to work every day proud that this institution is a space
where our voices will be respected and where our leadership assures we feel
safe, respected and heard. In that sense this place isn’t so much a job or a
profession or a nine-to-six. It’s a survival tactic. But it’s not just about
our individual struggles because, in the words of MLK, we’re not free until
we’re all free.

And at CAP we are a
family. We spend more hours with one another at this institution than we do
with our own families and friends outside the office. It is imperative that we
feel confident in this building to improve the lives of all Americans, and
essentially to work on getting us all free. It becomes difficult to step
outside of our building and say to our allies why this visit is happening, for
some of us here we ourselves feel that we were not considered in that decision.

We come with
questions and thoughts on how things have been developing and where we go from
here:

1) Our approach is
to think creatively at the cross section of traditional boundaries. It’s hard
to talk about poverty without talking about the economy or women’s issues or
education. Similarly, it’s hard to separate American progress from world
progress when young people in Palestine are advising young people in Ferguson
on how to deal with tear gas and flash grenades. So, while the decision
occurred in the policy portfolio of [CAP’s national security team], the
ramifications of that decision lives outside of that team.

2) Some of our teams
have a concern that there’s something distinctly not bold or progressive about
referring to the Prime Minister as “someone with whom we disagree” or “someone
who said some terrible things.” We disagree with Mitch McConnell; Don Lemon has
said some terrible things. So this is not just a “policy difference,” this is a
person who continues to defend the deaths of over 2000 people—many of them
children—last summer alone. What do we call a disagreement of that magnitude? A
thing that terrible? Would we bring other leaders to this institution who had
committed similar crimes?

3) Finally, on the
free exchange of ideas and progressivity. How do we engage in progressive
discourse, while continuing to fight for basic human rights of all people,
across the globe and in our own country, if we fail to emphasize this respect
for human rights in whom we choose to engage in conversation with? How do we
engage in conversation with world leaders whose views and actions undermine our
core principles, while maintaining the integrity of those principles?

And so we know Prime
Minister Netanyahu is set to come. But that decision was made in our collective
name, without enough consideration of the diverse backgrounds and experiences
dedicated employees bring to the table.

Bringing in another
head of state on “the other side” is not the solution. Our goal is to promote
humanity and shut down oppression and genocide and terrorism. Bringing in
another head of state with a record of oppression would further push our
mission away.

So what comes next?
What happens when we come back to work on Thursday Nov. 12? What is the Center
for Americans Progress to the people whose lived experiences Netanyahu’s
policies directly impact? How do we face our communities with answers?

These are all
questions that we, as passionate and committed employees of the Center for
American Progress have been asking ourselves this past week and hope for
answers to. As you look around the room, people of faith and all backgrounds
are asking these questions. Some are standing; many, many more don’t feel
empowered to do so. This is a humanity and human rights issue universally felt.
Some of us think this event shouldn’t be happening at all and others think a
broader discussion of this with CAP family should have happened before this
major decision.

Again, we are
appreciative of this institution, and the opportunity to speak out because this
is a family and right now as members of the CAP family we are in a place of
confusion and hurt.